Tennis is weird. One day you’re a legend, the next you’re watching a 24-year-old from Florida dismantle the entire draw like it’s a casual Saturday at the park. If you look back at the winner US Open 2017, you aren't just looking at a name on a trophy. You're looking at Sloane Stephens, a woman who, just months prior, couldn't even walk.
Seriously.
In early 2017, Stephens was basically glued to a couch. She had a stress fracture in her foot that required surgery. She was ranked 957th in the world. Imagine being ranked nearly 1,000 spots away from the top and thinking, "Yeah, I'll go ahead and win a Grand Slam in September." It sounds like a bad movie script. But it happened.
On the men's side, things were different but equally massive. Rafael Nadal didn't just win; he reasserted dominance. While the women's draw was a chaotic, beautiful mess of "who is going to step up?", the men's side was about a titan reminding everyone why he’s a titan.
How Sloane Stephens shocked the world
The 2017 US Open final was historic for a lot of reasons, mostly because it was an all-American affair. Stephens vs. Madison Keys. It was the first time two American women not named Williams played for the title since 1998.
Stephens played what most analysts call "perfect tactical tennis." She didn't hit the ball the hardest. Keys is the one with the literal rocket launcher for a forehand. But Stephens? She was a wall. She committed only six unforced errors in the entire final. Six. In an era where players often rack up thirty or forty in a three-set match, six is basically a miracle.
She won 6-3, 6-0. It was a demolition.
But the real story was the hug at the net. If you watch the footage, they held onto each other for what felt like an eternity. They’ve been friends since they were kids. It wasn't just about the trophy; it was about two people who grew up in the USTA system finally reaching the summit together. Honestly, seeing Stephens sit on the court during the trophy ceremony, checking her phone and laughing about the $3.7 million paycheck, was the most relatable thing a pro athlete has ever done.
Rafael Nadal and the march to his 16th Slam
While the women’s side felt like a revolution, the men’s side was a masterclass in inevitability. Rafael Nadal entered the tournament as the world number one, but people were skeptical. Roger Federer was in the draw. So was a young Dominic Thiem.
But then the draw opened up. Andy Murray pulled out. Novak Djokovic was sidelined. Stan Wawrinka, the defending champ, was out with injury. It felt like the "Old Guard" was crumbling, except for Rafa.
Nadal didn't face a single top-20 player until the final. Some people say he got lucky with the draw. Maybe. But you still have to beat who is in front of you, and Nadal absolutely crushed Kevin Anderson in the final.
Anderson, a 6-foot-8 South African with a serve that sounds like a gunshot, didn't have a chance. Nadal won 6-3, 6-3, 6-4. He didn't face a single break point. Not one. It was a suffocating performance that proved Nadal wasn't just a "clay-court specialist" anymore—a label people used to throw at him back in the day which looks ridiculous now.
The numbers that actually matter
If you look at the stats from that fortnight, a few things jump out. First, the 2017 US Open set an attendance record at the time. People were hungry for the new era. Second, the prize money was astronomical. Both Stephens and Nadal took home nearly $4 million each.
- Sloane Stephens unforced errors in the final: 6
- Rafael Nadal break points faced in the final: 0
- Stephens' rank jump: From 957 to 17 in five weeks.
- The youngest quarterfinalist: Andrey Rublev at 19.
Why the 2017 tournament was a turning point
Before 2017, the WTA was largely dominated by Serena Williams. But Serena was away on maternity leave. This created a vacuum. We saw the rise of what I call "parity tennis." Anyone could win. This tournament gave players like Naomi Osaka and Coco Gauff the psychological blueprint that you didn't have to wait your turn. You could just take it.
On the men's side, it was the beginning of the "Late Prime" for the Big Three. We thought they were finished in 2015/2016. The 2017 US Open proved that Nadal and Federer were going to gatekeep the sport for another half-decade.
And let’s talk about Kevin Anderson for a second. He was the first South African to reach a US Open final in the Open Era. He proved that the "giant server" archetype could still work on the modern, slower hard courts of Flushing Meadows. It wasn't pretty, but it was effective.
What most people forget about that year
Everyone remembers the winners, but do you remember Maria Sharapova’s comeback? She played her first Grand Slam match after a 15-month doping ban. She beat the number two seed, Simona Halep, in an opening-round thriller under the lights of Arthur Ashe Stadium. The crowd was split. Some cheered, some stayed quiet. It was the most electric atmosphere of the tournament until the final.
Then there was Venus Williams. At 37 years old, she made the semifinals. She almost made it an all-Williams-era final, but Stephens stopped her in a three-set grind. It was a passing of the torch that felt incredibly respectful but firm.
Actionable insights for tennis fans and historians
Looking back at the winner US Open 2017 provides more than just trivia. It offers lessons on career longevity and psychological resilience.
If you're looking to study this specific era of tennis, start by watching the Stephens vs. Venus Williams semifinal. It’s a clinic on how to play defensive tennis against a legendary attacker.
For those analyzing Nadal’s career, the 2017 final is the best example of his improved court positioning. He stood way back to return Anderson’s massive serves, a tactic that he perfected that year and used to keep his career alive well into his 30s.
🔗 Read more: When Do Man City Play: A Look at the Tough 2026 Run
Keep these points in mind for your own sports analysis:
- Recovery is possible: Stephens proved that a foot injury isn't a career-ender; it can actually provide a mental reset.
- Tactics over power: The women's final proved that consistency (low unforced errors) beats raw power (big winners) almost every time under pressure.
- Draw management: Nadal's run shows that being the top seed isn't just about prestige; it's about the statistical advantage of avoiding other giants until the very end.
The 2017 US Open wasn't just another tournament. It was the bridge between the dominance of the 2000s and the chaotic, high-energy era we are living through now. Whether you're a fan of the grit of Nadal or the fairy-tale comeback of Stephens, that year remains a benchmark for what makes New York tennis so special.